Mentions:
A total of 312 and 300 patients were analyzed for the technical and clinical success rates. Technical (odds ratio (OR): 0.34; CI 0.10–1.14; p=0.05; Figure 2A) and clinical (OR: 1.48; CI 0.46–4.79; p=0.51; Table 2B) success rates were not statistically significant between the EGBD and PTBD groups (Figure 2). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the mild adverse events profile between the two groups (OR: 0.36; CI 0.10–1.24; p=0.11; Figure 3A). On the contrary, the moderate and severe, and total adverse events were significantly less in the EGBD group (OR: 0.16; CI 0.08–0.32; p≤0.00001 and OR: 0.34; CI 0.20–0.59; p≤0.0001, respectively; Figure 3B). Cost analysis of the procedure was done in two studies.13,15 From both the studies, it was found that EGBD was less costly compared to PTBD (Table 3). The re-intervention rate was also less in the EGBD group for all the three studies reporting it (Table 3C).12,15,16

Mentions:
A total of 312 and 300 patients were analyzed for the technical and clinical success rates. Technical (odds ratio (OR): 0.34; CI 0.10–1.14; p=0.05; Figure 2A) and clinical (OR: 1.48; CI 0.46–4.79; p=0.51; Table 2B) success rates were not statistically significant between the EGBD and PTBD groups (Figure 2). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the mild adverse events profile between the two groups (OR: 0.36; CI 0.10–1.24; p=0.11; Figure 3A). On the contrary, the moderate and severe, and total adverse events were significantly less in the EGBD group (OR: 0.16; CI 0.08–0.32; p≤0.00001 and OR: 0.34; CI 0.20–0.59; p≤0.0001, respectively; Figure 3B). Cost analysis of the procedure was done in two studies.13,15 From both the studies, it was found that EGBD was less costly compared to PTBD (Table 3). The re-intervention rate was also less in the EGBD group for all the three studies reporting it (Table 3C).12,15,16